This is a placeholder for now because I have not had ads on this blog for years. In case I ever start up again, this will be the policy in effect:
The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don't think we're getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you're stupid, too. I have had a few ads on this site in the past and may do so again if I think it's worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn't buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don't mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now--you're not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer.
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Comment House Rules
Keep them on topic. No spam. No threats against anyone except me. Do not feed trolls--I'll take out the trash. Try to keep it clean. I'm the final arbiter. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn blog.
Link Policy
WarOnGuns reciprocates links with liberty-oriented sites promoting the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable individuals. If you have linked to me and don't see your site below, it's probably just because I haven't noticed it yet. Shoot me an email via the "Contact Form" (see above in this sidebar) if you want to fix that.
As a general rule I remove links for blogs that have been inactive for over one year.
She prints something intended to provoke a given (inevitable, considering human nature) response, then uses that response to ridicule her opposition.
She has the soap box, she's the "authorized journalist", so she can cherry pick the responses she wants to highlight. Ignore any potentally embarassing effective response and print the angry, the less educated, the less "popular" opinions to "demonstrate" the nuttiness of the pro-gun community.
Anyone, anywhere on any controversial topic could use this tactic. Most do not in consideration of ethics and/or some semblance of conscience. She, obviously, has neither.
Sailorcurt may well be right, he usually is. However, I could not resist sending her the below, above my real name, of course.
Subject: Why do you propose more killings of innocents?
Killings of innocent people by ever larger numbers is inevitable if your proposals were to become fact. If you had journalistic integrity you would have already done the research and proven this to yourself. That you did not do your research, but feel qualified to provide advice and guidance says nothing good about ability to form a coherent and logical opinion.
You seem not to care how much harm you cause. What's worse is that your reasoning is so childish. I am making an assumption that you are physically of an age where you should be an adult.
However, after reading both your columns regarding the horrible atrocity at Nickel Mines, Pa., I am forced to recognize your mind is of inferior quality. Let me restate that. Your mind is operating as if it is of inferior quality, the quality potential for your mind may not be impaired. The problem could be that you let emotion dictate its path.
Your immaturity then makes it appear that your mind is incapable of logical thought.
Any logical thought process would disabuse you of the fallacious opinions you hold. Hell, any examination of what you would be willing to personally surrender to promote pretend security from madmen would show you what a foolish thing you have proposed for others.
Those girls died because they were helpless and those they relied upon were helpless. Had they not been helpless, some of them may have died anyway, if the attack had occurred. There is every reason to believe that the fact of their helplessness is one of the major factors in their selection as victims.
Now you come along and tell us they were not helpless enough. Worse, you want everybody to be just as helpless. What kind of monster are you? What do you have planned that you desire all about you to be defenseless?
Those are not rhetorical questions. Law of Nature of Man: If one desires you no harm, he needs not have you defenseless and disarmed.
Corollary: If one needs you disarmed and defenseless he intends you harm, either immediate or in potential.
History bears this out without exception. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I have no reason to believe you are the second coming of Christ so I will assume you are mortal and flawed just as the rest of us are and not to be trusted with overwhelming power any more than are the state or your neighbor or myself, for that matter.
5 comments:
Methinks we are playing right into her hand.
She prints something intended to provoke a given (inevitable, considering human nature) response, then uses that response to ridicule her opposition.
She has the soap box, she's the "authorized journalist", so she can cherry pick the responses she wants to highlight. Ignore any potentally embarassing effective response and print the angry, the less educated, the less "popular" opinions to "demonstrate" the nuttiness of the pro-gun community.
Anyone, anywhere on any controversial topic could use this tactic. Most do not in consideration of ethics and/or some semblance of conscience. She, obviously, has neither.
True enough--in which case, the record will be established for posterity to judge.
Sailorcurt may well be right, he usually is. However, I could not resist sending her the below, above my real name, of course.
Subject: Why do you propose more killings of innocents?
Killings of innocent people by ever larger numbers is inevitable if your proposals were to become fact. If you had journalistic integrity you would have already done the research and proven this to yourself. That you did not do your research, but feel qualified to provide advice and guidance says nothing good about ability to form a coherent and logical opinion.
You seem not to care how much harm you cause. What's worse is that your reasoning is so childish. I am making an assumption that you are physically of an age where you should be an adult.
However, after reading both your columns regarding the horrible atrocity at Nickel Mines, Pa., I am forced to recognize your mind is of inferior quality. Let me restate that. Your mind is operating as if it is of inferior quality, the quality potential for your mind may not be impaired. The problem could be that you let emotion dictate its path.
Your immaturity then makes it appear that your mind is incapable of logical thought.
Any logical thought process would disabuse you of the fallacious opinions you hold. Hell, any examination of what you would be willing to personally surrender to promote pretend security from madmen would show you what a foolish thing you have proposed for others.
Those girls died because they were helpless and those they relied upon were helpless. Had they not been helpless, some of them may have died anyway, if the attack had occurred. There is every reason to believe that the fact of their helplessness is one of the major factors in their selection as victims.
Now you come along and tell us they were not helpless enough. Worse, you want everybody to be just as helpless. What kind of monster are you? What do you have planned that you desire all about you to be defenseless?
Those are not rhetorical questions. Law of Nature of Man: If one desires you no harm, he needs not have you defenseless and disarmed.
Corollary: If one needs you disarmed and defenseless he intends you harm, either immediate or in potential.
History bears this out without exception. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I have no reason to believe you are the second coming of Christ so I will assume you are mortal and flawed just as the rest of us are and not to be trusted with overwhelming power any more than are the state or your neighbor or myself, for that matter.
Please grow up.
Sincerely,
(real name)
Totally indoctrinated communist/socialist. Probably beyond saving.
Links to her articles are no longer active. Guess she doesn't like getting linked from gun sites.
Post a Comment